On 21 Jan 2007 05:57:36 -0800, "Beefeater" wrote:

So what?

It means probably several things. One is that apparently wildlife
biologists have confidence in the value of animal testing, which
shouldn't be any surprise to anyone who thinks about it other than
"aras" who sadly though amusingly can't understand at all. Another
would be that there must be reason for it....probably overcrowding
and disease due to insane hunting bans managed to be imposed
by the same sort of "aras" who are too stupid to understand what
good the research does....stupidity feeding stupidity....

Peta kills pets. http://www.petakillsanimals.com

They rake in some $28million in a year and tell people that they will
take care of unwanted animals and find them all homes... and guess
what? They get caught killing them and dumping the dead bodies of pets
into dumpsters behind shopping centers.

Just give it up!

Wait. Let's consider Newkirk's views on hoof and mouth plagues
occuring in the Americas too:
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Animals are to serve two functions in today's society:
They should be delicious, and fit well.

http://www.vegetariansareevil.com

Yes, but there's no legitimate reason for us not to try to provide
them with lives of positive value and humane deaths.